![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie Review: Robin Hood (spoilers)
Jul. 12th, 2010 12:30 pmHi all,
Sorry to have been away so long -- my new job has taken over my life. Anyway, I finally went and saw the new Robin Hood movie with a friend from LJs, actually. I had a good time and it was fun.
The movie wasn't that bad -- not as bad as Kevin Cosner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves but that's kinda' like saying a Ford isn't quite as bad a a Yugo. And actually, Robin Hood wasn't as bad as a Ford, either.
EDIT: (7/25/2010)
Hi all, OK, finally at home on my desktop and I can update and fix this. I started this post ages ago, when Robin Hood came out. This is the Russell Crowe movie directed by Ridley Scott. I started the post, then lost my connection and thought it was gone forever. Then I just didn't have time to update. But last time I DID update, to my surprise this post showed up, so I posted it with the intention of fixing it eventually. Well, eventually is now.
SPOILERS - "Robin Hood - the Prequel"
The movie is basically, "Robin Hood -- The Prequel" and starts with Robin coming home from the crusades, with King Richard the Lionheart. All is good so far. Then Richard is killed, and Robin gets involved in a quest from a dying Knight. He ends-up returning the Crown to England, and Prince John is named King John -- again, so far so good. Robin then returns the Knight's sword to his ancient father, and ends-up staying, pretending to be the knight, so the knight's wife, Marion (a very feisty Gweneth Paltrow) can keep her lands. Robin, an honorable man, soon ends-up protecting the locals who live on Marion's land.
Then the movie descends into blatant IGNORANCE of British history!!! Seriously, I don't care how cool it looks, Mr. Ridley Scott -- get your facts right!
First -- (Bad) King John SIGNED Magna Carta! OK. No, ifs, ands or buts, --he did, the British Barons forced him to sign the document. To show that he didn't is pure ignorance, and there's no excuse for it!
Please see the following link.
www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html
If you read the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in1215, you can see the other problem that I frequently see with movies set in the middle ages, or history books about the UK for that matter -- at least in US classrooms. The Magna Carta isn't so much the British "constitution" as a really good legal description of Feudalism. (The UK, like Canada, has several Constitutional Documents which together provide rule of law, as well as case precedent). And believe me Magna Carta goes into incredible detail about Feudalism and what everyone's rights and obligations were. Feudalism was not simply a top-down system, but rather a system of levels and for the most part your average Lord had obligations to those above himself as well as to those below himself. The King had obligations to everyone below himself, down to the serfs (who were not slaves, btw) and merchants. The serfs had obligations to everyone above themselves, but in practical terms only dealt with their local lord. The lords between had obligations to their senior lord and/or the King (depending on where they were in the hierarchy) as well as their own serfs, freemen, merchants (guild members), and knights. You can think of Feudal Europe as being like a giant corporation with the CEO at the top, a bunch of middle-level managers, then the workers at the bottom. Lords were obligated to provide food and shelter for their people, as well as provide for the common defense. (The castle, keep, or whatever the lord had was often used for defense -- if someone attacked the town, everyone ran to the castle, which had enough food and wine to provide for everyone during a siege and also provided defense). The lord also had obligations to the lords above himself, and the king, normally in terms of taxes (more often in kind -- chickens, cows, sheep, linen, grain, beer, wine, wool, etc) and men (knights to defend the realm and fight in the Crusades which were going on at the time).
The barons had problems with King John (and before he was King, Prince John) for a couple of reasons. It wasn't just the existence of taxes or that they thought taxes were too high -- it was that John forced the barons to pay the taxes in coin, not kind. Medieval barons didn't have coin. The Middle Ages didn't have a whole lot of coin, and what did exist was mostly war booty. Everyone was trading in KIND, from the peasants, serfs, and freemen to the lords and barons. So John's insistence on coin, frankly, pissed off the barons.
The second thing John did that really angered the barons was he broke his promises and also played the barons off one another. John would promise a lord additional land and a better title -- then renege on the deal. After a while of this, the barons wised up and banded together. They forced King John to sign Magna Carta at Runnymede. And if you read the document, it lists, in detail, everyone's obligations to each other and all the rules of feudal society. In great deal. But the point is John signed Magna Carta!!! It's ridiculous for Ridley Scott to pretend in a movie that John tore up the Magna Carta. That's kinda' like saying the US Constitution was never signed.
Other problems with Scott's Robin Hood include that shot of the invasion of the UK by French troops -- that looked way too much like Steven Spielburg's Saving Private Ryan. Troop carriers didn't exist in Medieval Europe! Maybe Scott was trying to say something about history repeating itself, but it just looks wrong, and like he was copying a great movie (and not an homage' -- copying. There's a difference.) Also, the World War I-style helmets looked wrong, tho' someone did tell me they were possible. And, I think the British lost that battle, rather than winning it as they did in the movie.
So -- the good: Robin Hood does go over a different portion of the Legend, with a different background for Robin. I liked seeing Robin coming home from the crusades and falling into a quest that would led him to become the legendary man he became. I also liked Marion - she was well played , feisty, and it was nice to see her not immediately fall into Robin's arms, but a slowly forming friendship, then a relationship. And Russell Crowe, as always, was fantastic.
The bad: Ridley Scott desperately needs to sit down with a book of British history sometime. He also needs to not copy other famous directors. Frankly, he's a well-known director too, and he's better than that.
Overall, three out of five stars.
--Olivia
Sorry to have been away so long -- my new job has taken over my life. Anyway, I finally went and saw the new Robin Hood movie with a friend from LJs, actually. I had a good time and it was fun.
The movie wasn't that bad -- not as bad as Kevin Cosner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves but that's kinda' like saying a Ford isn't quite as bad a a Yugo. And actually, Robin Hood wasn't as bad as a Ford, either.
EDIT: (7/25/2010)
Hi all, OK, finally at home on my desktop and I can update and fix this. I started this post ages ago, when Robin Hood came out. This is the Russell Crowe movie directed by Ridley Scott. I started the post, then lost my connection and thought it was gone forever. Then I just didn't have time to update. But last time I DID update, to my surprise this post showed up, so I posted it with the intention of fixing it eventually. Well, eventually is now.
SPOILERS - "Robin Hood - the Prequel"
The movie is basically, "Robin Hood -- The Prequel" and starts with Robin coming home from the crusades, with King Richard the Lionheart. All is good so far. Then Richard is killed, and Robin gets involved in a quest from a dying Knight. He ends-up returning the Crown to England, and Prince John is named King John -- again, so far so good. Robin then returns the Knight's sword to his ancient father, and ends-up staying, pretending to be the knight, so the knight's wife, Marion (a very feisty Gweneth Paltrow) can keep her lands. Robin, an honorable man, soon ends-up protecting the locals who live on Marion's land.
Then the movie descends into blatant IGNORANCE of British history!!! Seriously, I don't care how cool it looks, Mr. Ridley Scott -- get your facts right!
First -- (Bad) King John SIGNED Magna Carta! OK. No, ifs, ands or buts, --he did, the British Barons forced him to sign the document. To show that he didn't is pure ignorance, and there's no excuse for it!
Please see the following link.
www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html
If you read the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John in1215, you can see the other problem that I frequently see with movies set in the middle ages, or history books about the UK for that matter -- at least in US classrooms. The Magna Carta isn't so much the British "constitution" as a really good legal description of Feudalism. (The UK, like Canada, has several Constitutional Documents which together provide rule of law, as well as case precedent). And believe me Magna Carta goes into incredible detail about Feudalism and what everyone's rights and obligations were. Feudalism was not simply a top-down system, but rather a system of levels and for the most part your average Lord had obligations to those above himself as well as to those below himself. The King had obligations to everyone below himself, down to the serfs (who were not slaves, btw) and merchants. The serfs had obligations to everyone above themselves, but in practical terms only dealt with their local lord. The lords between had obligations to their senior lord and/or the King (depending on where they were in the hierarchy) as well as their own serfs, freemen, merchants (guild members), and knights. You can think of Feudal Europe as being like a giant corporation with the CEO at the top, a bunch of middle-level managers, then the workers at the bottom. Lords were obligated to provide food and shelter for their people, as well as provide for the common defense. (The castle, keep, or whatever the lord had was often used for defense -- if someone attacked the town, everyone ran to the castle, which had enough food and wine to provide for everyone during a siege and also provided defense). The lord also had obligations to the lords above himself, and the king, normally in terms of taxes (more often in kind -- chickens, cows, sheep, linen, grain, beer, wine, wool, etc) and men (knights to defend the realm and fight in the Crusades which were going on at the time).
The barons had problems with King John (and before he was King, Prince John) for a couple of reasons. It wasn't just the existence of taxes or that they thought taxes were too high -- it was that John forced the barons to pay the taxes in coin, not kind. Medieval barons didn't have coin. The Middle Ages didn't have a whole lot of coin, and what did exist was mostly war booty. Everyone was trading in KIND, from the peasants, serfs, and freemen to the lords and barons. So John's insistence on coin, frankly, pissed off the barons.
The second thing John did that really angered the barons was he broke his promises and also played the barons off one another. John would promise a lord additional land and a better title -- then renege on the deal. After a while of this, the barons wised up and banded together. They forced King John to sign Magna Carta at Runnymede. And if you read the document, it lists, in detail, everyone's obligations to each other and all the rules of feudal society. In great deal. But the point is John signed Magna Carta!!! It's ridiculous for Ridley Scott to pretend in a movie that John tore up the Magna Carta. That's kinda' like saying the US Constitution was never signed.
Other problems with Scott's Robin Hood include that shot of the invasion of the UK by French troops -- that looked way too much like Steven Spielburg's Saving Private Ryan. Troop carriers didn't exist in Medieval Europe! Maybe Scott was trying to say something about history repeating itself, but it just looks wrong, and like he was copying a great movie (and not an homage' -- copying. There's a difference.) Also, the World War I-style helmets looked wrong, tho' someone did tell me they were possible. And, I think the British lost that battle, rather than winning it as they did in the movie.
So -- the good: Robin Hood does go over a different portion of the Legend, with a different background for Robin. I liked seeing Robin coming home from the crusades and falling into a quest that would led him to become the legendary man he became. I also liked Marion - she was well played , feisty, and it was nice to see her not immediately fall into Robin's arms, but a slowly forming friendship, then a relationship. And Russell Crowe, as always, was fantastic.
The bad: Ridley Scott desperately needs to sit down with a book of British history sometime. He also needs to not copy other famous directors. Frankly, he's a well-known director too, and he's better than that.
Overall, three out of five stars.
--Olivia
